• The students in lower classes have fewer opportunities.

    Students who are academically streamed in schools have low self-esteem which makes it hard for them to learn. Students who are streamed in lower classes have fewer opportunities. For example; the higher classes move on with the topics faster and have better teachers and do have competition. Whereas the lower classes have fewer opportunities, they don't move with the topics quickly and they have teachers who are not so good.

  • Why Streaming is a bad idea

    In my opinion, only the smart students should be streamed, it is unfair on the people in the middle streamed classes and the bottom streamed classes. Bullying can happen here by top stream people calling bottom stream people a "retard" or a "cabbage". Or something like that. So then classes other than top stream are randomly done.

  • More children are hands on and auditory learners than visual

    It makes more sense for the child to learn how to do whatever they are learning by actually doing it than watching another person do it. As they can get a deeper understanding of what they are learning. But when you just watch something you do not always understand what or how it is happening. I can watch brain surgery but it does not mean I understand it or would be able to do it myself.

  • Depression and drop outs are caused by 'Academic Streaming'

    Many students across the world have developed depression and anxiety and low self-esteem leading to dropping out of school. They feel like the teachers don't believe in them to get high marks. Students have rights to get given a chance to excel their learning and get to the standard that is required, cause the only thing we should be streaming is rivers. Thank you

  • Depression and drop outs are caused by 'Academic Streaming'

    Many students across the world have developed depression and anxiety and low self-esteem leading to dropping out of school. They feel like the teachers don't believe in them to get high marks. Students have rights to get given a chance to excel their learning and get to the standard that is required, cause the only thing we should be streaming is rivers. Thank you

  • I not equal at all and it also puts a divide between abilities.

    Streaming has a negative effect not only of the low end students but also on the high end students. The high end students have to continually prove themselves that they are worthy enough to be in the higher academic classes where as the lower end academic students dont receive that strive and push they loose the motivation to complete tasks because they have already been classified to a certain group and they loose the confidence to try and challenge the high end students.

  • The top set always get it all

    When you stream you create and elitist group in the top set! They feel and act superior to everyone else, they get away with a lot more and when they do fail it's not there fault! They become a pain for the rest of the school! You have to constantly listen to them with there brilliance despite that fact that you do better than them! There is always a reason for the failure and it is never that they didn't work hard enough or aren't clever enough it fails to prepare them for life when they aren't the best

  • The age of streaming children in schools is becoming increasingly younger.

    Primary schools are setting their children from the tender age of seven- an age when they are becoming increasingly impressionable and where labels will stick to their minds like glue. Parents of bright children, like myself, will argue that the lack of streaming will hinder their child's learning. However, surely at seven and eight girls and boys will still be be developing levels of citizenship which will improve in a diverse environment; when they are working alongside inspirational, cleverer children who motivate their peers, and when they provide inspiration and help those who need it. Without these two different perspectives children are living in isolated bubbles. This may lead to them becoming less accepting of those not at their level. Similarly, at primary school, the impact of background affects performance at school. Children are not at the stage to understand what they want from their education and their school attitudes and performance will mirror the attitudes of their home life. By streaming the children into (lower?) sets, their self prospects are diminished further and they feel unable to improve whilst also lacking help from home. Assessment of children's performance at primary school isn't as significant as at high school, where a degree of setting may be necessary to provide aid to those who need it. However, at primary school, a child is not expected to have reached its potential. If a child is bright, being around less bright peers will not shrink their brains. Parents argue that their genius children get bored when not streamed in classes. These children should be encouraged to aid and tutor their peers. To improve their knowledge of a subject, to improve their interaction with others and to improve their understanding of the people around them. Children need to be raised as a team, not a segregated mass of different brain densities. We are a world of human beings not a computer shop: macs at the front and cheap PCs in the back room.

  • Children that are streamed achieve more

    Children that achieve more are more likely to be streamed, as they are catered to their educational needs and they're pushed to their best and then they achieve more. However if they are put in a non-streamed environment they are held back from their potential and can be achieving less than average, because they are not learning anything new.

  • Streaming is not really the issue, Mixed ability classes are not really the issue, it is the system, it is how we educate.

    Education in the current context and climate is outdated and needs to get with the times. Teaching is still driven by an industrial model and placement in Universities. We need to cater more effectively for all learners in the learning environments how every they may look. We need to cater for the 'Yes' and 'No' respondents in this Debate. Schools need to embrace individualised programming, teach to how the brain actually learns best and modify classroom environments so collaboration and equity are enhanced. Don't do the same old stuff, get with the programme and 'Future Teach'.

  • No, academic streaming is helpful to everyone.

    I went to primary in a school where there was no academic streaming, and I absolutely hated it. I am a bright person, but without the streaming I felt bored 90 percent of the time. Being bored all the time led me to hate school. I am now in a streamed environment, and I am thriving and really enjoying it.

  • No, we should not.

    It is my understanding that academic streaming helps the students learn at their own pace. This is important because many children often get left behind the second the teacher has gone over something they did not understand right away. If academic streaming is helping all students reach the level the need to learn at and at their own pace, then it should be more accepted.

  • No we need to improve academic streaming.

    We shouldn't ban the academic streaming system, we should try to improve it. We should try to find ways that the students in lower classes don't feel dumb and the students in higher classes can achieve to their potential. The academic streaming system can improved by making it more widely accepted so that students will see and accept that everyone has different learning capabilities and that is okay.. Having good quality teachers for every level, this way everyone is given the same opportunity to learn and achieve. Lots of other negatives to academic streaming that fixed to create a better schooling system for everyone.

  • Streaming allows students to move along at a pace that matches their abilities.

    Basically a streamed class is like a moving train. The conductor is the teacher, the passengers are the students and they are going somewhere, together. The unstreamed class is like a group on a hike. The more fit among the group quickly take the lead only to discover that they must either stop to wait on their lagging group or go back to meet them. Eventually they may lose enthusiasm for the hike. Likewise, the less able hikers may become frustrated as a result of their inability to keep up with the group and give up altogether. Undoubtedly, both groups are at a disadvantage in this type of class setting.

  • I am smart

    I am smart I am smart I am so smart I am smart I a,s smart I am smart I am smart I a m smart I am smart I am smart I am smart I am a smart I am smart I am smart I am smart I am smart

  • Academic Streaming can place the students with their appropriate pace and teachers.

    Without streaming, the teachers cannot teach in the appropriate pace of the students. Students also will not do their work with the best of their ability. If I were to be in a school without streaming, I would be so bored that I would want to drop out from my class.

  • Streaming makes pupils work harder.

    I went to a school where I was in the bottom class and this only made me work harder and by the next year, I was in the top set. Pupils in the top class want to stay in the top class and they also work harder, In mixed ability classes clever pupils are not challenged and bottom set can not keep up.

  • Differrence of streamed and unstreamed classroom.

    In this type of class setting students are able to:

    1.Motivate each other because they possess similar abilities.

    2.Move ahead at the same pace because there are no major disparities in ability within the stream.

    3.Grow in confidence and self esteem since no one is made to feel inferior or stupid among his/her peers. In fact, they offer each other friendly competition which is, in itself, motivational.

    The unstreamed classroom
    This class setting can have serious disadvantages:

    1. Gifted students placed in an unstreamed class setting among low ability students for whom the pace has to be much slower than their own, soon lose interest in what is happening in the classroom and seek alternative means of engaging themselves. They may manifest their loss of interest through disruptive behaviour, careless attitude towards work or rebelliousness.The fact is that they are grossly under -challenged so they react. They want to move ahead; instead they are forced to stand still or perhaps even regress to match the pace of the less able students in the class who would probably need twice as much time to complete tasks.
    2. Lower ability students are easily demotivated in an unstreamed setting where the pace is set above their level making their inabilities stand out in stark contrast to that of their peers. They may react in a number of ways such as withdrawal, rebellion, indiscipline and even truancy. Withdrawn students are easily overlooked and often left behind if the teacher is not sensitive and caring. Rebellion and indiscipline obviously cause problems with authority which only exacerbates the situation. Inevitably, these students become drop outs.

  • Hh hh h h

    Fff hhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhh h h h hhhhh h hhhhhhhhhhhh hh h hh h hhh h h hh h h h h h hh hh h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hhh h h h h h h h h h h

  • Streaming is efficient,

    Streaming is an efficient system of learning, designed and catered to the intellectual needs of each individual which vary greatly. After all, some students are just more gifted than others (admit that much). That is why we had only 1 Einstein for our entire history.
    Therefore, streaming is what schools should be doing. Schools are born to enhance an individual's knowledge to be applied to later life, and they should do that to the best of their ability.
    The main point that people try to argue against streaming is primarily the fact that it exacerbates social inequality. But the thing is, why do you want schools to be the model of equality? Schools are designed to provide students with knowledge, and that is its purest purpose. Imposing anything else on the tasks of schools (like making it "fair") would be detracting from this main purpose, which leads to the dilemma of schools not being able to do what they do best to their best, and doing something that was forced on them haphazardly (let's face it, no school has ever been 100% fair). It's a lose-lose situation.
    Also, the notion that low-streamed students somehow 'give up" due to them being somehow attributed as "inferior" does not apply to this century. As a society, we have promoted the need for smart people, innovative people, a message deeply conveyed throughout all students, low or high-streamed. As such, the mentality of "giving up' is not an option. This is what traditional opposition relies on. But they never considered the opposite: what if this leads to more knowledge hungry students that want to shorten the gap? What if instead of deterring students, streaming allows for new motivation in studying and in the acquisition of knowledge? Wouldn't that be good?

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.